Thursday, January 05, 2006

The Home Of The Brave

I have mentioned this over and over again on the radio show and on the blog. I am glad to see it becoming a movement. Thank you Glenn Greenwald at digby:

Without pause, the Administration has sought to make Americans as frightened as possible about terrorism and has used that fear to justify its actions with regard to almost every issue....
They are trying to take over the world and murder us all. And this is not merely a threat we face. It is much more than that. It is the predominant issue facing the United States -- more important than all others. Everything pales in comparison to fighting off this danger. We face not merely a danger, but, in Bush’s words, an "unprecedented danger" -- the worst, scariest, most threatening danger ever.And literally for four years, this is what Americans have heard over and over and over from their Government – that we face a mortal and incomparably powerful enemy on the precipice of destroying us, and only the most extreme measures taken by our Government can save us.......
The argument which needs to be made is the one that we have seen starting to arise in the blogosphere and elsewhere: that living in irrational fear of terrorists and sacrificing our liberties and all of our other national goals in their name is the approach of hysterics and cowards, not of a strong, courageous and resolute nation.......
If the blogospheric reaction of Bush supporters is any indication, this argument is as politically potent as it is self-evidently true. Kos’s post provoked shrieking seizures among the tough-guy, blindly loyal Bush followers -- the ones who revealingly give themselves play name like Rocket and Captain and who never tire of touting their own toughness. In response to Kos’s post, they squealed and they yelled and they called him all kinds of names – they did everything but refute the argument.And notably, in their anger, there was none of that smug bravado or all-too-familiar attacks on the courage of Bush opponents, because with this plainly accurate depiction, they stand revealed as being driven by nothing other than limitless, irrational fear. They are scared and they want to continue to implant their extreme fear into our national policies and onto our national character.There is no more important goal than exposing and undermining the cowardly and exaggerated fear which lies at the core of the Bush agenda. If, as has been the case, we are bullied into starting from the tacit premise that Islamic terrorism is a unique and unprecedented evil which threatens our very existence -- rather than one of many challenges which we must calmly face and overcome .....
it is past time to bolster that growing recognition by pointing out over and over that the Bush Administration’s insistence that we live in never-ending fear and panic of terrorists is the opposite of the American virtues of strength and courage in the face of threats.......
What must be emphasized is that one can protect against the threat of terrorism with courage, calm and resolve – the attributes which have always defined our nation as it has confronted other threats. Hysteria and fear-mongering are the opposite of strength. The strong remain rational and unafraid.

One point not made in this essay, People seem to have the idea that there is only one way to fight terrorism and that is the way the Bushiveks are doing it. Not true. Scroll down the page for some of my thoughts on that.
Let's put forth a full court press on these cowards and expose them for what they are.

The only thing we have to fear is fear its self.

20 Comments:

Blogger The Game said...

I have to respond to what you put on my blog today...if you read the whole post, I said that everyone who is involved in the xoff scandal should go down hard. I gave the examples I gave to show that all the hypocracy and bias being presented by the media is wrong. Your mental abilities have really taken a it...the FIRST sentence in the post was:

There have been plenty of Dem's getting money from xoff. I am in now way saying that makes it okay for the Right...

Didn't think that was very hard to understand...if that was to hard to understand, you must have not read what I wrote Wednesday...

Both sides are going down on this one...and I say good.
Anyone taking bribes makes me sick.

Sorry to say that it seems that you have slid all the way down into the Kool-aid drinking liberal

11:27 AM, January 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good post Mr. Stevens. The fascists
can only react. Btw, you might want to check into an organization known as Character First, not to be confused with Character Counts. When you dig into it you realize they are "Christian" Reconstructionists.

3:35 PM, January 06, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Game, there is no way all those people are going to be charged with taking money for legislation. THAT is the issue. It is ok to get money from organizations associated with AB. as long as it wasn't to influence legislation. Taking money from AB directly is a different matter. That list is vastly Republican. You post shows how little you even understand the issue. You were just looking for something to say it's the liberal media. May I share your Kool-Aid?

5:45 PM, January 06, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Game, here as a "more accurate" list of indictable players:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff

A very small handful of Democrats.This is not "they all are involved"..sorry.

Also, if you care to learn more google
"K Street Project".

Thanks for agreeing that all guilty should be yardarmed...on that we can agree.

6:01 PM, January 06, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

--Hermann Goering

10:26 PM, January 06, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

I completely agree, and have said that same thing on my blog as well...it will have to be proved who too BRIBES...but so far we can see that LOTS of people took money...that is all I'm saying...it is not all one sided...

12:18 AM, January 07, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Not all onesided but overwhelmingly one sided.

1:08 PM, January 07, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

we shall see...maybe it is as one sided as Karl Rove has been convicted off any crimes

2:09 PM, January 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, I have that Goehring quote on my truck. Along with a lot by Eisenhower, Butler, MaCArthur, Bradley.
You aren't from Roswell, are you?

Lonna

4:37 PM, January 07, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

No but I did a touch and go there back in '47. ;-)

7:50 PM, January 07, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

yep, tom delay hasnt been convicted of any crimes yet either. I guess it is a matter of what you expect from your government...for me thats not it. conviction or not.

11:02 PM, January 07, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Jim, Did Harry Truman really get a look at you back in 47 or is that just folklore?

11:03 PM, January 07, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

Actually we played poker and drank bourbon. But that cigar thing really stank.

11:55 PM, January 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Daily Kos:

Don't forget that Jack Abramoff's own secretary, Susan Ralston, became Karl Rove's Personal Assistant, and that Abramoff said he contacted Rove personally on relieving his client Tyco from having to pay some taxes and still be able to get federal contracts. Abramoff said "he had contact with Mr. Karl Rove" on Tyco.

But that's not the half of it! It was only revealed this August that in 2002 Bush himself fired a prosecutor, Frederick Black, investigating Abramoff over a scandal in Guam. Rove recommended the replacement and the inquiry of Abramoff ended! ""The demotion of ... Black looks political and should be investigated," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said in a press release." It would be Obstruction of Justice by Bush if true.

PLUS Bush never repaid Abramoff's firm, Greenberg, $314,000 in bills for the 2000 Recount, making it in effect a HUGE in-kind contribution to Bush! SO BUSH OWES ABRAMOFF BIG-TIME. And Abramoff himself was a "Pioneer", raising over $100,000 for Bush in 2004.

My investigation on the flip, Jack!

posted by Lonna

2:27 PM, January 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dean Crushes Blitzer On Abramoff Politics (transcript from Atrios)

UPDATE: Ok, here's my transcript, but watch the video if you can to get the full effect.

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who's now pleaded guilty to bribery charges among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington —should the Democrats who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff. Not one. Not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican, every person under investigation is a Republican, every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money, and we've looked through all those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: [Stammering] But through various Abramoff-related organizations, and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either, there's no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator, what about, what about, what about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth, and they have misled the American people, and now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

BLITZER: [Long pause, apparently getting direction in his earpiece] [Sigh] Unfortunately, we, uh, Mr. Chairman, we've got to leave it right there.

I love how Blitzer says that money donated by Indian tribes "presumably originated with Jack Abramoff," with absolutely no evidence or basis in fact. Objective journalism at its finest.

posted by Lonna

6:13 PM, January 08, 2006  
Blogger The Donkey said...

Hey Lame Game:

This is a Republican scandal. The political donations and sham charity gifts connected to Abramoff himself went solely to conservative politicians, committees, and activities. No Democrat has been found to have received fantasy golf junkets, trips to tropical islands, expensive dinners and sports tickets, jobs or favors for family and friends.
The conservatives are the politicians who received the loot and the label of Culture of
Corruption.

You are sreading lies, but that is what you do. No one on this blog believes you. If you can't run with the big dogs, you need to stay under the porch.

12:40 PM, January 09, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) Received At Least – $22,500
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) Received At Least – $6,500
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) Received At Least – $1,250
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) Received At Least – $2,000
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Received At Least – $20,250
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) Received At Least – $21,765
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) Received At Least – $7,500
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) Received At Least – $12,950
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) Received At Least – $8,000
Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) Received At Least – $7,500
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct.) Received At Least – $14,792
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) Received At Least – $79,300
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Received At Least – $14,000
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Received At Least – $2,000
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) Received At Least – $1,250
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) Received At Least – $45,750
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Received At Least – $9,000
Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) Received At Least – $2,000
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) Received At Least – $14,250
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) Received At Least – $3,300
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Received At Least – $98,550
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) Received At Least – $28,000
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) Received At Least – $4,000
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) Received At Least – $6,000
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.) Received At Least – $29,830
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) Received At Least – $14,891
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) Received At Least – $10,550
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) Received At Least – $78,991
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) Received At Least – $20,168
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebr.) Received At Least – $5,200
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Received At Least – $7,500
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) Received At Least – $2,300
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) Received At Least – $3,500
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Received At Least – $68,941
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va. ) Received At Least – $4,000
Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) Received At Least – $4,500
Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) Received At Least – $4,300
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) Received At Least – $29,550
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) Received At Least – $6,250
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) Received At Least – $6,250

1:34 PM, January 09, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

why has Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold given back money then? You are so power hungry it makes you look pathetic

1:35 PM, January 09, 2006  
Blogger The Donkey said...

Hey lame game:


It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
You do respect the law, don't you ?
So stop annoying The Donkey, law breaker.

3:12 PM, January 09, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

My God! Donkey, I thought you were kidding but you aren't!

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

10:14 PM, January 09, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home